fiat money is very effective

ﬁat money is very effective
…although it may not be ethically managed
image source, screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXdxG3EkK_Y (bitcoin logo added)
a minitalk for the Silicon Valley Ethereum Meetup 08-October-2017
by Steve Randy Waldman / swaldman@mchange.com / @interfluidity

…distinguish ethics from effectiveness
………………………………………The Times 03/Jan/2009
Chancellor on brink of second bailout
for banks…………………………………………………………………………
— Satoshi Nakamoto
from the Bitcoin genesis block
•To me this signals an ethical concern (which I share!)
•However, during the financial crisis, fiat base money
became more, rather than less valuable, relative to
other financial assets and expected consumer prices
— Policymakers worried about deflation not inflation

•Common effectiveness claims about ﬁat money
—“it’s weak”
—“governments are prone to debase it”
—“it’s unstable”
—“it’s doomed”
•These claims are sometimes true!
•But.
•Fiat currencies are issued by states. Every state is different.
•These claims are almost never true of ﬁat currencies issued by
— strong stable states capable of taxing their citizens
— with banking systems effective at encouraging widespread borrowing
— with large, diversified domestic economies 
(and so the capacity to do with fewer imports if necessary)
— that borrow in their own currency, and do not have sizable debts in
foreign currency

•For now, in my view, the fiat currencies of major economies beat
every existing form of crypto hands down on effectiveness
— this might not be true of a sufficiently credible Tether-like stablecoin
whose value is pegged to a fiat currency, but there the crypto is
piggybacking on the effectiveness of the fiat
•Existing fiat monetary systems are managed pretty unethically
in my view, in ways that privilege some groups and harm others.
A “good” crypto might well compete from an ethical
perspective.
— although for the moment, the crypto space is so scammish I think it’s
giving fiat a run for its money on unethicalness, albeit at a smaller scale
so with smaller harms
•I’m not “for” fiat as money or “anti” crypto. Current iterations of
crypto are just ridiculously poor candidates for a dominant
money, except maybe in countries that lack the capacity to
issue credible fiat.
— it’s conceivable, although not very likely, that countries that now
“dollarize”, formally or informally, could choose a crypto as an external
unit of value rather than a foreign fiat

what is money?
•The usual story
— Medium of exchange Means of final settlement
— Store of value
— Unit of account
•In value-weighted terms, exchange of cash money is almost
never the dominant form of exchange
•We issue claims on money and use those claims as our medium
of exchange
— If that sounds abstract, consider what happens after you pull out your
credit card
•In most economies, final settlement in base money is relatively
rare. Claims on money are reproduced and circulate indefinitely
as media of exchange
— You pay your credit card from bank deposits, themselves a claim on
base fiat money. The vendor you pay likely accepts and holds her
payment as bank deposits.

what is money?
•Even where there is no formal bank credit, in value-weighted
terms, synchronous, atomic exchanges are the exception, not
the norm
— You pay your rent in one shot for shelter services delivered over the
course of a month
— You pay a lawyer a retainer, from which she bills the hours she works
over an extended period of time
— You negotiate a contract with a construction firm, in which funds are
delivered in advance and then in tranches as certain milestones are met
•Asynchronous exchange has to manage two distinct problems
— Counterparty risk on both sides (will the buyer deliver the money? will
the seller deliver the goods?)
— Valuation risk (will the values that seemed sensible at contract initiation
leave one party badly screwed and another with a windfall as the
collaboration unfolds over time?)
•Monetary systems that fail to manage both of these problems
will leave parties reluctant to form high-value, over-time
collaborations, severely limiting economic activity

what is money?
•Even where exchange is formally synchronous, we all (as
individuals and as businesses) face real obligations that unfold
over time.
— We are born “short” a stream of food, water, and shelter that extends
indefinitely over time
— Businesses have to anticipate future costs (payroll, raw material,
maintenance) and future revenues in order to plan for the future
•We want a unit of account that helps us to solve the economic
calculation problem, that helps us to reason about our future
receipts and obligations
•We want a unit of account and store of value that hedges our
risk, inherent in the fact that our contractual obligations and the
prices of goods and services we require may ﬂuctuate over time
and leave us unable to meet our obligations.
•Monies that fail to enable economic calculation will prevent
valuable enterprises that require complex work over time from
forming. Monies that fail to hedge risk will leave humans too
nervous for speculative enterprise.

what is money?
•The unit of account that we choose will sometimes form the
basis our assets
—we will hold or contract for claims on this unit
•But it will frequently form the basis of our liabilities!
—we will contract to make future payments in this unit
•It will not be desirable for the value of this unit (in terms of
actual goods and services) to unexpectedly collapse, as that
inflation would devalue our assets
•But it will also not be desirable for the value of that unit (in
terms again of actual goods and services) to unexpectedly
spike, as that deflation would cause the burden of our liabilities,
our debts, to balloon!
—People who want to profit from price fluctuations, who hope
to speculate, can always invest in things they expect to spike.
If they are wise, however, they will do only with what is left
over after first hedging upcoming obligations!

what is money?
•The sine qua non of money…
Money is deﬁned by the unit of
account in which obligations
payable into the future get
denominated
•An almost equivalent formulation, since human labor is (at least
for now) the most prevalent thing for which people (directly or
indirectly) contract is this…
Money is deﬁned by the unit of
account in which labor contracts
are negotiated and priced
…usually everything else follows

what is money?
•Note that “unit of account” is much more important than
medium of exchange or means of ﬁnal settlement.
— In some countries, contracts are negotiated in foreign “hard-currency”
terms, but may be paid in a local scrip
— Store of value usually follows unit of account. If paid in local scrip,
people usually save in the currency their future obligations are
contracted in, to hedge valuation risk

ﬁat does price stability
•The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is an imperfect, perhaps
politically distorted, measure of how much “ordinary life” costs
for a typical household.
•There cannot be a perfect measure of such a thing, because
there is no typical household. Each individual buys different
things from different vendors, facing different prices and
changes in prices, with different preferences and willingness to
make substitutions as prices rise or fall.
•Nevertheless, imperfect measures are usually all we have and
often very valuable, and for all the worries and conjectures
about politicized statistics, over moderate periods of time, lots
of strands of evidence suggest US CPI is a not-too-terrible
imperfect measure.
•Let’s look at US CPI in US dollar terms and in Bitcoin terms
since 2014.

CPI is extremely stable in USD terms. In BTC terms, depending on when you
contracted to pay or receive coins, you were likely either badly screwed or
received a windfall. Every contract is a currency gamble in addition to
whatever else it is

•If you live in the US and are not especially atypical in what you
buy, you can pretty safely adopt US dollars as the unit of
account in which you negotiate your wages and/or obligations
— The value in terms of real goods and services of the future US-dollar-
denominated amounts you negotiate is predictable
•In the US (or anywhere else), you cannot negotiate wages or
obligations in terms of BTC without taking huge chances on
the value of those wages and obligations in terms of actual
goods and services
•In the US, you could have effectively hedged your anticipated
needs of real goods and services by saving US dollars at any
time over this period.
•If you had stored value in BTC during January 2014 to cover
anticipated needs of real goods and services in January 2015,
you would have found yourself with roughly a quarter of the
value you required and would have gone hungry. But if it was
August 2017 needs you had tried to cover, you’d ﬁnd yourself
rich, with 5 times more purchasing power than you put aside.

•In part this is an unfair comparison, a self-fulﬁlling prophesy.
Since the US dollar is already the dominant currency in the US,
it is already the unit of account that contracts and wages are
denominated in, which stabilizes the cost of producing goods
and services in US dollar terms, at least over the short term. If
BTC were the dominant money, prices of goods and services
would be somewhat more stable in BTC terms by virtue of this
effect.
•But that is a small part of the story. We know from the history
of commodity money that despite denomination of contracts in
a currency, prices of goods and services can ﬂuctuate quite
wildly.
— We’ll take a look at the purchasing power of the dollar over the gold-
standard era shortly
•Fiat prices are stable because they are actively managed to
be stable.

•States — by virtue of taxation, issuance of new currency,
borrowing, spending, and managing interest rates — can
actively adjust the supply of their currencies and work to
counteract ﬂuctuations in demand in order to keep prices
relatively stable.
— This requires continuous observation of actual conditions and
intelligent adjustment across a varied range of instruments to those
conditions
— From a price stability perspective, conventional cryptocurrency’s “hard
money” fixed supply is laughably unsophisticated and inadequate
— Much of the (often deservedly) bad reputation of fiat money systems
comes from the fact that states have many instruments by which to
effect price stability. Choices of which to use, which are ultimately
discretionary, create different distributional outcomes and pick winners
and losers
— States with a longstanding reputation for delivering price stability have
an easier time of it, because widespread expectations of continuing
price stability can be self-fulfilling. Central bankers like to crow that
inflation expectations are “well-anchored”.

fiat does capital-efficient reversibility
•Price stability is about managing valuation risk, and makes a
money useful for economic calculation and hedging the risk
humans face of finding themselves unable in the future to afford
the real goods and services they require
•Fiat money banking systems also enable effective means of
managing counterparty risk. Most obviously, payments are often
reversible.
— If I have paid for something with a traditional credit card and believe the
merchant has not adequately delivered the good or service contracted, I
can dispute the charge.
— In many cases, the charge will be reversed without any recourse to
expensive litigation.
— There is unnerving discretion (on the part of banks, who serve as
arbitrators) in this process. On philosophical grounds, one might object
that the procedure is insufficiently predictable or fair, or that it is
distorted by bank and state objectives like discouraging forms of
commerce declared illegal.
— But it works “well enough” to enable commerce that otherwise might
fail to occur for lack of trust

•Reversibility can be built on top of cryptocurrency systems,
but most solutions require escrow, either directly or indirectly
on the part of some guarantor of a transaction.
•Escrow is expensive: It ties up some party’s capital that might
otherwise be used productively.
— Somebody always pays the cost of escrow. For a guarantor, funds in
escrow might be “productive use”, because she charges a fee to
guarantee and so earns a return. But that just shifts the cost of escrow
to whatever parties pay the fee
•Cryptocurrency types often tout irreversibility or the absence
of settlement risk as a feature, rather than a bug. And for some
niche uses, that’s right. Irreversibility helps enable commerce
that states and/or banks might seek to censor by threatening
reversal despite delivery of the goods or services contracted.
•But the vast, vast majority of commerce in well-developed
states is not illicit. The beneﬁts of reversibility are real, the
costs to most buyers are rare or hypothetical. Sellers bear
costs from reversibility, but those are offset by increased
buyer conﬁdence.

•Of course, it is possible that the costs of transaction
censorship are actually huge, that if people were free to
transact as they saw fit without fear transactions would be
sabotaged by reversal (or confiscation, or disclosure to the
state), there would be many more of these “niche”
transactions and they would prove so economically valuable
as to offset the benefits of reversibility with respect to
counterparty risk
•However, there is little evidence for this counterfactual. In the
real world, prosperity and commerce are positively correlated
with intrusive, regulated banking systems, not negatively
correlated as anarcholibertarians might predict.
— Correlation isn’t causation. Maybe we observe this correlation
because prosperous economies attract Randian “looters”, rather than
intrusive, regulated banking systems greasing the wheel for
commerce. While there is no doubt plenty of parasitism in modern
banking systems, I think denying the importance of their role in
enabling commerce among strangers at scale is obtuse.

…more on the stability of fiat money
•Compare and contrast:
— Claim 1: “Paper money” always collapses to worthlessness. History
proves that. The value of gold endures!
— Claim 2: Every human dies, while rocks endure. So you are better off
hiring a rock to be your dentist.
•Every fiat currency will indeed eventually collapse, because
every state will collapse.
•During the eventual heat death of the universe, most atoms of
gold found on Earth today will continue to exist.
— Maybe you would still want them if you were there!
•In the meantime, on the time horizons relevant to us, fiat
currencies usually work really well and the whole world has
adopted them for good reasons.
— But. This won’t remain true if the preconditions for strong fiat cease to
hold. (See earlier slide.) If you predict a political and/or economic
collapse of the backer of your favorite fiat you should absolutely fear
sudden devaluations. Sometimes you might predict this.

•But hasn’t the purchasing power of a US Dollar collapsed by
about 96% since 1913? Why yes, it has!
•If you’ve kept money in a mattress since 1913, you’ve been
badly screwed.
— Do note, however, that the worst and sharpest screwing happened
during World War I, under the gold standard, and the greatest
“unscrewing” was the Great Depression. Good times.

•However, if you held your money in anything interest-bearing,
including short-term Treasury bills with no-credit-risk, you’ve at
least almost doubled the purchasing power of your money!
GraphmodifiedfromEssentialsofCorporateFinance6e,byRoss,Westerfield,andJordan

•“Price stability” in current practice is defined dynamically, not
statically
•It retains the essential feature of price stability: the price level,
over the medium term time horizon of economic planning,
should be predictable
•However, rather than staying constant (the most intuitive notion
of stability), under dynamic price stability, prices are publicly
targeted to rise at a predictable constant rate (typically 2% per
year, under current practice)
•There are solid economic reasons to prefer this “dynamic price
stability” to a system in which the purchasing power of the
currency remained fixed.
•In particular, wages are famously “sticky downward”. In theory
prices fluctuate freely, and must vary up and down with
economic conditions. In practice, labor is different, humans
don’t accept wage cuts happily, firms lay off workers to reduce
labor costs rather than cut individual worker wages

•With dynamic price stability, after some boom has raised wages
to a level inconsistent with full employment, once the boom
subsides, “wage cuts” can be delivered by simply failing to
provide annual raises that keep up with inﬂation. In practice, the
humans more easily accept this.
•Under dynamic price stability, you might imagine that during
“ordinary times”, prices, wages, and money held in bank
accounts or short-term Treasuries all increase by the same 2%
per year. This holds the purchasing power of wages and saved
money constant.
•However, in extraordinary times, like during a recession, wages
might rise more slowly than 2% (translating to a cut in real
terms) and interest rates might decline to less than 2% (creating
more incentive for savers to either spend more money or invest
it in riskier but more productive ways).

•People who complain that fiat money systematically screws
savers are badly mistaken. In practice, fiat money systems
more usually err on the side of overcompensating savers.
— We saw that between 1925 and 2006, enjoyed increases in purchasing
power of more than 70% for holding fiat money in short-term Treasury
securities — not meaningfully invested, bearing no more risk than they
would by holding cash.
— The “mattress tax”, the value lost on funds literally held as paper
currency, relatively minor (on the order of 1% of Federal expenditures),
and arguably desirable as a tax on illicit activity and failing to
participate in the investment process.
•Stronger cases can be made that currently dominant fiat
systems have screwed workers (through silent wage cuts that
might otherwise have been resisted) and borrowers (if savers
have been overcompensated, borrowers have been
overcharged)

…summary
•Fiat money systems are extraordinarily effective. They rule the
world. You may or may not like them, but you measure your
wealth in ﬁat money.
•Fiat currencies are like humans, many fail, but those that
succeed succeed extraordinarily.
•Over a period of centuries, economic development and military
power have gone to states that have been able to
simultaneously relax the constraints of commodity money
while retaining the credibility to borrow in their own currencies.
— The British “Pound Sterling” has not bought a pound of sterling silver
for a very long time. If you want a simple explanation for how some
little rainy island came to rule much of the world before World War II,
look to the Bank of England, which mastered the art of
opportunistically offering, then suspending, then restoring, then
eliminating, convertability (to gold, not silver) meet military and
economic objectives while retaining investor credibility.

…summary
•Fiat currencies are not “backed by nothing”. They are backed
by the labor and assets of all the humans who have obligations
to pay in ﬁat, by the power of the state to coercively create
such obligation via taxation, and by the ingenuity of banking
systems at seducing people to voluntarily accept obligations to
repay ﬁat
•Fiat currencies are no more “created from thin air” than you
create money from thin air when you make a purchase with
your credit card
— You do, actually, create a medium of exchange from thin air when you
make such a purchase! But you are disciplined in that money creation
process by the consequences that would befall you if you failed over
time to sustain the credibility of that medium (collection letters,
bankruptcy, shame, poverty)
— States issue money from thin air subject to quite similar constraints. If
they are incautious, their currencies collapse and their leaders risk
shame, revolution, prison, beheading

…summary
•Fiat currencies are worrisome not because they are ineffective,
but because they are so effective. The management of fiat
provides state actors with incredibly powerful, ultimately
discretionary, tools which significantly affect who wins and who
loses and how equal or unequal a society is. Fiat money and
associated banking systems are the technology that enables
the finance of war on scales that would have been unimaginable
a few centuries ago. Price stability, the primary advance fiat
offers users over other forms of money, is often purchased at
the expense of workers and the unemployed, on behalf of those
who have the luxury of worrying about economic calculation for
their businesses or hedging with their savings horde
•The case against fiat is an ethical case, much more than an
effectiveness case. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts who pretend
that fiat money can be superseded by a “technically superior”
alternative usually both misunderstand the problem, and fail to
understand or appreciate even the technical strengths of the
target they claim to be on the verge of “disrupting”

fiat money is very effective

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to fiat money is very effective

More from Steve Waldman

Recently uploaded

fiat money is very effective